dragonballfandomcom-20200225-history
Talk:Broly (DBS)
Broly's Yellow Eyed Black Hair Form Isn't It Possible This Is Just A-Type Super Saiyan? Bob1200 (talk) 15:15, July 20, 2018 (UTC) *It probably is. Not confirmed yet tho. --Neffyarious (talk) 15:39, July 20, 2018 (UTC) *Doubt it. They are not obligated to follow non-canon Broly's transformation scheme to a T, along with the Daiz schematics they created for those movies. This is just the "Wrathful" form as far as we know. Xfing (talk) 23:20, November 6, 2018 (UTC) :Your four months late. DragonEmeperor (talk) 23:29, November 6, 2018 (UTC) Berserk I wonder if the lack of pupils is the primary sign of going berserk. This seems to be the case as when characters get really, really mad in the show their pupils disappear.--Hulk10 (talk) 22:16, July 20, 2018 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that Broly has a tail in the DBS movie but its likely wrapped around his waist.--Hulk10 (talk) 21:43, July 31, 2018 (UTC) Now we know that Paragus removed Broly's tail, pity. I really liked the idea of him having a tail as an adult.--Hulk10 (talk) 00:46, December 8, 2018 (UTC) "Broli" You can't exactly give him an alternate name. This specific Broly is confirmed to be flatout called "Broly", as the movie poster even has it spelled as "Broly". So giving him the alternate name of "Broli" is akin to spreading false information. Though, this is likely to be disregarded either way, so not sure why I'm even bothering. ExyleCage (talk) 17:24, July 22, 2018 (UTC) Going by your logic, including "Bra" as an alternate name in Bulla's article is spreading false information because both Toei and Toyotaro spell it as Bura in the manga and anime, even though it's her real name. 16:08, July 23, 2018 (UTC) Which is perfectly sound logic. If there's no source saying her name is spelled "Bra", then it's Bura. If there's, say, a Spanish source that calls him "Broli", then it's all good, but every canon source so far calls him "Broly". It is INDEED spreading false information and I just don't see why nobody understands that. ExyleCage (talk) 17:19, July 23, 2018 (UTC) Brackets Good decision to give to THAT Broly a brackets with information.--[[User:SuperSaiyanDate|'Date']] 11:26, July 23, 2018 (UTC) (BR) Haven't been here in a while. What's the BR from? Stitchking1 (talk) 13:24, October 18, 2018 (UTC) It probably stands for "Broly Revised" in order to differentiate him from the original Broly. DragonEmeperor (talk) 19:48, October 18, 2018 (UTC) : To offer a different opinion wouldn't Broly (Super) make more sense? Broly: BR works but seems a little weird for some reason. Just my two centsTenevhrael (talk) 12:08, December 31, 2018 (UTC) How about Broly: Canon, or Broly: Reimagined? Gogeta Omni (talk) 14:18, January 7, 2019 (UTC) Move list is wrong Someone has copy pasted the techniques list of the old Broly to the new one, including quotes we have no evidence he has even used with some of these. We should remove this until further notice (Hadrimon (talk) 12:32, October 22, 2018 (UTC)) Broly wasn't born with a power of 10000 Wasn't he at 920 in the movie? The movie should take precedence over some supplementary, third party material. Xfing (talk) 13:43, December 31, 2018 (UTC) His power kept fluctuating between 920 and 10'000. That is why the scouter scopes kept breaking. FlatZone (talk) 15:58, December 31, 2018 (UTC) I think this page should be renamed I mean... this version of Broly is the canon one, so I think that it deserves it's name to just be Broly, and the movie trilogy one to be Broly (Movie) or just merge the two pages, with the previous Broly being listed in a non-canon subheading, with his respective transformations in another separate sub-heading? Milkshake & Oreos (talk) 17:09, January 6, 2019 (UTC) :Canon or not, the First Broly movie's came first, this is the later addition to the franchise. Merging the pages was tried and didn't work out.ScipioLecter (talk) 00:02, January 7, 2019 (UTC) ::It's not. It sounds stupid. And "canon" is only a fans term, it doesn't exist in the actual original media. For japanese - this is just other version of THE Broly.--[[User:SuperSaiyanDate|'Date']] 06:08, January 7, 2019 (UTC) ::https://twitter.com/Herms98/status/1070890625803804672 canon is a word for the authors. QuakingStar (talk) 06:40, January 7, 2019 (UTC) :::That word is rarely used by authors and a discussion for that already happened and was settled quickly. As for merging the pages, we already had a discussion about it and the community ruled in favor of keeping them separated as they go through different events in their lives like Trunks and Future Trunks for example. DragonEmeperor (talk) 08:39, January 7, 2019 (UTC) ::::Canon isn't a "Fan term". It's a term used to differentiate from materiel that isn't part main story or what is a "What-if". Stating it's "Not used in the original media" doesn't make much sense, because it's not used directly in any media. Like refereeing to a story arc or saga.--ScipioLecter (talk) 17:56, January 7, 2019 (UTC) :::::For the vast majority of franchises, it absolutely is a fan term. If "canon" were an objective term, you wouldn't have Star Wars haters (or "fans", as they call themselves) saying that the prequels and the sequels aren't "canon". :::::Orion (T-B- ) 18:04, January 7, 2019 (UTC) ::::::No it's not. It's an objective term, just because people use it incorrectly doesn't mean anything. People who say things like the prequel and sequels aren't canon are just using the term incorrectly. Star Wars is a perfect example of canon and non-canon, with a ton of the expanded universe being turned into non-canon materiel.--ScipioLecter (talk) 18:14, January 7, 2019 (UTC) :::::::Well, they consider the original trilogy to be "the main story", therefore everything else is non-canon. They're using it just like you are. By the way, are you trying to say that movies are canon? :::::::Orion (T-B- ) 18:18, January 7, 2019 (UTC) :::::::No they aren't, because of Star Wars media type, all movies released under the Star Wars Franchise from the parent studio or creator are canon. This would also refer to any information given from the IP owner or who ever own's the copyright to the materiel. Non-canon refers things like books or video games, produced but not considered part of the story. They are essentially what-if scenarios, All the Dragon Ball movies up until battle of gods were non-canon. Star Wars for example had a huge expanded universe, which was considered canon to the story until the new films came out, which rendered it all non-canon. It doesn't matter if fans only considered the "original movies canon" because it's not up to them, they are using the term incorrectly, they just don't like the new materiel and call it non-canon to make it seem less valid.--ScipioLecter (talk) 18:58, January 7, 2019 (UTC) ::::::::Why were all the Dragon Ball movies until BoG non-canon and the ones from that point on were not, especially given that we got BoG and RoF in anime form (which I'm guessing is what you consider "the main story")? ::::::::PS: Materiel is something completely different. You mean "material". ::::::::Orion (T-B- ) 19:12, January 7, 2019 (UTC) :::::::::Because the creator and owners of the franchise said it was. It's not any more complicated than that. Those films were Incorporated into the story proper, and a referenced in the actual story. Other films are not, that is seen clearly here with Broly being introduced with the characters having never meet him before, if the other moives were canon, they'd know who Broly was.Those movies are non-canon because as far as the main story is concerned, they never happened. What is more is most of them couldn't of happened given time lines given. :::::::::P.S ad hominem isn't a good way to win a discussion. --ScipioLecter (talk) 19:24, January 7, 2019 (UTC)